Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 14, 2013 12:00am-12:31am PDT

12:00 am
at the top of his lungs. i think there is a protocol by which you have to carry yourself. one of the gentleman from metro made reference to my dead mother. i did not say anything. i encourage stephan and peter daley to resolve these issues. i wanted the whole deal, metro hands down, you were head and shoulders above ports of america. what is the problem with you and the ilw?
12:01 am
what did i say to port of america? i am disturbed by the fact that down in la that you got the bid and metro is doing the stevedoring. if you get the bid and have someone else do the work for you it shows you you don't have a handle on it. i would ask when you come back in september when the three parties come together, when you need to sit down and resolve the issues. negotiation is about give and take. you never get everything you want. i want to go out with metro and the port of san francisco and
12:02 am
double the amount of cruise ships coming in; i want to work with metro and jim peters so that we can buld a state-of-the-art bulk facility. i want china to invest in our port and our city. thank you. >> thank you willie, and i appreciate the comments of the made. i want to add that i think we echo that we want these issues resolved. we want labor peace. we are here to make a decision on whether metro is a qualified bidder. we heard a lot of similar to say they are the qualified bidder; this is not the final contract. with support that the party should sit down and resolve these issues before any final contract is approved.
12:03 am
it is the basis of what we are doing today, whether metro is qualified to commence contract negotiations. i think i'm hearing that there is agreement that they're qualified to enter into contract negotiations, and some of the terms raised by our labor partners that we would continue to ask metro, the port on the unions to sit down and resolve this because it is important to have peace and i agree we don't want passengers to feel tension. based on that, i would like to ask the commission to vote to accept metro as a qualified bidder. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> the name of today has been jobs. it's important that we continue
12:04 am
to create opportunities that will continue to bring people to the waterfront with these jobs. i do have a question regarding lbe goals -- if there are any? >> good evening commissioners. port staff. this particular agreement falls outside chapter 21. lbe goals were not set up front; if it had folded inside we would have set lbe goals up front. because it is outside of 21, and the reason it is is because leases are excluded. also this is a quasi lease management agreement. focuses on payments to the city
12:05 am
for this agreement. the operator will hold revenues and pay the port a fee. however knowing the commission's desires, in the request for responses was said that it is our intention that there will be local business component, and local hire as well. the goal will be determined in concert negotiations very much like a development agreement. it will be at their option to agree with an lbe goal and local hire requirement. >> so hopefully when you come back in september since you are the most qualified to do this job that we will have great news regarding lbes and labor issues. thank you. >> (off mic) >> great, thank you. >> i'm sorry, it's 14b, i don't know why i said 21.
12:06 am
>> is in it 12? ( laughter) >> commissioner murphy? >> i would like to say that the numbers speak for themselves as far as mentor is concerned. i would like to see this move forward. i would like to echo commissioner adams about making the peace and working to differences out. i think that's important. >> i want to concur with my colleagues. the message has been sent loud and clear. working with labor is an important value in san francisco; that is something we prided ourselves on. san francisco is known as the
12:07 am
city that supports labor. we are so dependent on our tourism economy but we don't want to show labor strife to visitors when they come here; that is counterproductive to all that we want to accomplish so i hope the message has been sent that we are pleased that metro did well and getting such high marks; we hope that these issues can be worked out and resolve as we go through the negotiations moving forward. >> i think we want to say what commissioner adams already said, the port commission is not the place to resolve these issues, we are not stakeholders and that. we hope that that will be the case, would not see that -- we are not in a position to
12:08 am
judge as to what the term should be but we do expect that you will tell us how you can resolve these issues the two parties going forward. all those in favor? aye. resolution number 1325 has been approved. thank you. >> item 12, new business. >> commissioners i have an item from commissioner brandon on the youth employment coming back from an earlier discussion. any other items a request? >> small one. i want to convey a message from some of the people that travel to clark, ireland, with monique our director. what a wonderful ambassador she is from the port of san francisco and wanted to give you (off mic)
12:09 am
(off mic) ( laughter) thank you. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. >> moved to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor? thank you.
12:10 am
>> good evening and welcome to the june 5, 2013 meeting board of appeals. commissioner frank fung and commissioner honda and hurtado. to my left is -- who will provide the board with any legal advice and we have mr. pacheco. i'm the board of director. scott sanchez is here representing the planning
12:11 am
department and bureau of streets and mapping and jeffrey is a building inspector representing the department of building inspection. >> mr. pacheco if you will go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request that you turn off all cell phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceeding. the boards rules of presentation are as follows: appellants and department representative each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute minutes. members not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttals. to assist the board in accurate representation of the minutes, people are asked, but not
12:12 am
required to submit a speaker card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available at the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have a question about rehearing or board rules, please speak to a staff or call the board office tomorrow morning. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television cable channel 78 and dvd's are available for purchase from sfgtv. >> thank you. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearing and wish to the the
12:13 am
board hear your testimony, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after being sworn in. pursuant to the rights in the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear ora firm that the testimony you are about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> we have one housekeeping item this evening that has to do with item no. 8. protesting the granting of a variance. the appellant in this matter has requested that the hearing be rescheduled and the variance holder has disagreed with the president's consent we can bring up the parties and have them presented to you about the
12:14 am
rescheduling request. >> i would like to do that. i would also like to make a self disclosure that i am friends with the permit holders wife and but i don't believe that is going to interfere with my ability to sit for and rule on this matter. >> okay. thank you. >> so we can hear from the appellants first. president wang, three minutes? >> yes. >> i'mal son perry, the appellant. i'm here in person to talk about the request made yesterday and i'm confused because the copy of the request was agreed. the other party agreed to it. so anyway, i know that it's still a board vote whether to -- >> i believe i explained that the permit holder had agreed to
12:15 am
a june 19th date but it wasn't a date that i could be here. >> that's okay. i did not get response brief before this date which is not a lot of time and we called and asked what to do about it and we requested the scheduling and i didn't fax this until yesterday and got the brief yesterday afternoon. so i understand that it's not the best way and nobody wants to reschedule it a month later but we were still stuck with having a day to look at it and figure out whether there was anything new and it might be obvious that i'm not an attorney. we are representing ourselves as neighbors and we keep going through the process and following the rules and for whatever reason i didn't get the brief. i don't know if it
12:16 am
was an address problem or as the respondent said the postage maybe was wrong, i don't know but i didn't get it and we feel we need more time. i understand, the facts we feel we have are important and so bruce in person to make that request again and ask for a vote. >> when did you receive this? >> about 4:00 yesterday. >> through e-mail? >> he brought it to my mailbox and e-mailed it. >> you were aware that you didn't receive this as of friday. >> i got it thursday and made the phone call. >> i'm just looking quickly at the materials. it's two pages. >> the whole brief, well but
12:17 am
all the paper >> all the attachment. got it. >> we are told nothing is different. that's a valid point. the fact is we had 24 hours. >> sure. you said earlier there was some agreement to move the date to june? >> i would have been fine with another week but i looked at the schedule it would have been 6/19 and because of the schedule it would have to be pushed another two weeks. >> so you are comfortable with june 19th? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> we can hear from the variance holder now. good evening commissioners. when we found out about the miss cue i'm not sure what happened. maybe the address was wrong. we tried to address it as soon as possible. we got the call at
12:18 am
1:00 in the afternoon. we dropped it off by hand and mailed two of the copies to the parties. i think we would have agreed to an extension if it was only one or two weeks. i think in this situation our original variance was scheduled for december. we agreed to continue it until january to discuss with the parties further. no information has changed. we didn't submit any new information as part of the brief. it was a rehash of the original variance application and made in january. i don't believe there is any new information to review as we felt that the zoning administrator had ample information to make his determination. we would prefer to have this matter heard today since they had 5 months to prepare. any questions? >> what substantially is
12:19 am
different? the two pages? >> we did a description of the project which is i believe a physical description of what we submitted. there is the drawing that was presented at the variance hearing which describes our proposed building as well as the two adjacent properties and all the information was submitted. >> are all of these attachments previously submitted? >> yes. we were showing these at the variance at the hearing. nothing has changed. >> june 19th is acceptable to the appellant but was acceptable to you but our board of directors say it will be a midnight hearing. >> i wasn't at liberty to address that. >> what's the harm of moving it to july 10th? >> i just think it's -- we've
12:20 am
been waiting 5-6 months from our original variance hearing. it's getting pretty delayed for my client. we are trying get this process over with. we feel like it's a fairly cut and dry situation. we would like to have it heard. there is no new information. we are not sure what the extra couple weeks are going to do other than delay our clients and cost additional funds. >> but the decision wasn't made until mid-april? >> correct. the variance was, the decision wasn't issued until mid-april. correct. the hearing was end of january. >> okay. any other questions? >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez anything? any public comment. commissioners, it's up to you whether you want to make a motion or not? >> anyone want to stay here
12:21 am
until midnight? it's a very difficult decision, i think. any thoughts? >> we have a procedure. they didn't have on that particular date. they should have the timing based on what's in our procedures. that's their expectation. i think we should support that. >> we are talking about moving it to july 10th versus june 19th. >> to let everyone know i won't be here june 19th. i won't be here. >> you are skipping out on the fun night, huh? >> any other comments?
12:22 am
actually, never mine. i will be here. >> i'm going to move it to -- i would accept moving it to july 10th. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to reschedule item 8. v 14046 to july 10. on that motion, president huang, lazarus, fung, honored a hurtado. this matter is scheduled to july 10. there is no additional briefing because all briefs have been submitted. >> thank you. >> all right. so we'll go back to item no. 1 which is public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on an item that is not on
12:23 am
tonight's calendar? seeing none. commissioners comments and questions. commissioners? >> no? okay. item no. 3 is the adoption of minutes. for your consideration of the meeting of may 22nd, 2013. >> i move to adopt the minutes. >> thank you, any public comments on the minutes? >> seeing none. mr. pacheco please call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the may 22, 2013, minutes. commissioner fung, aye, hurtado, aye, lazarus aye, commissioner honda. those minutes are adopted. >> item no. 4. item 4: subject
12:24 am
property at 349 banks street. letter from vicki shipkowitz, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-034, shipkowitz vs. za, decided may 08, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the zoning administrator's release of suspension request on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion. subject property owner: candu capital group llc. za order: asking that the suspension against bpa no. 2012/11/29/5100 be lifted for the reason that the planning commission has held a public hearing on the project and voted unanimously to not take dr and approve the project comply with nov no. 201275901; legalize construction of deck through the roof at 3rd floor built without benefit >> item no. 4. item 4: subject property at 349 banks street. letter from vicki shipkowitz, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-034, shipkowitz vs. za, decided may 08, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the zoning administrator's release of suspension request on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion. subject property owner: candu capital group llc. za order: asking that the suspension against bpa no. 2012/11/29/5100 be lifted for the reason that the planning commission has held a public hearing on the project and voted unanimously to not take dr and approve the project comply with nov no. 200 127-5901; legalize construction of deck through the roof at 3rd floor built without benefit of permit. #1234 1234 >> versus the joaning administrator decided may 8, 2013. >> hi. i'm vickie. this is a
12:25 am
quick reminder that the neighbors at 349 banks are concerned with the easy access and ask the board rescind or require modifications of the permit. >> the hearing request is based on the following circumstances. commissioner were asked to talk about this -- fatigue which is understandable. there was three parties involved. it would have been difficult in the best of circumstances much rest at 11:00 at night. for the sake of due process, this case deserves to be heard at a reasonable hour. the city was not held accountable. they did not provide adequate response to specific errors that were called out and in some cases no response. they have since the final made new errors related to this permit. they have again issued a permit without a
12:26 am
public notice review. this is revision to a suspended permit without during a suspension period. new and important information was brought forward by ddi. a comparable case is a dormer which was set by adjacent property. i don't believe the impact of which could be absorbed so late at night. what's more, not adequately considered was that this design creates and attractive nuisance. no one disputes this fact including the land project manager at the board of supervisors office. should the board not consider, neighbors will be forced bylaw to erect barriers. neighbors are being penalized. the deck in question is not being shown
12:27 am
tonight. there is no 3rd part liability in the design. investors have not been held accountable. misrepresented the fact in the permit in the brief and the hearing. you may recall the video with contractors who they didn't know jumping on and off my roof. they built without permit and continue to work despite the suspended permit. they spray neighbors and myself including those who came to support me. they have maligned my character. i urge the members of the board of appeals that hear this case at a reasonable hour. planning as nice as they are and holding
12:28 am
investors accountable for the truth to disrespect the city and neighbors. thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder now. this seems like a mockery of the process. i understand the process is designed to avoid manifest injustice. i don't know how the flags that were just presented that were likely to mean speculative is actually going to help you decide whether we should rehear it or not. the requirements for that the purpose is to manifest
12:29 am
in just and to bring forth material facts at the time this was done. if the board members are tired at the time of the hearing. matters related to code violations, fire safety access are being addressed at the time of the dr, they have been addressed in the appeals process. nothing has changed from that point to now. when the appellant requests a dormer to be compared for a deck, it clearly shows that she has a lack of understanding of what is required. with respect to the neighbors coming, we've actually had an open house. the house is open on the market. you can see the calculation of what profit we might make. we've had neighbors come to apologize and say this is beautiful. i don't see why this
12:30 am
was done. we don't know neighbors. i don't have the time to do that. and they have come on their own volition. we have not stopped them from coming in. we got introduced to them and they welcome the property. you can see in the dr process and during the rehearing process you will not hear any neighbors coming by. they are coming by and apologizing. in terms of getting your status update on the project, all the permits have been completed and they are all building and county code compliant. if you agree to not retheory further, we would go ahead and complete the work make sure it's planning and building code compliant and i understand the standard department is setting for us for even being a half an inch away which will be a leeway